Lost art

With uncharacteristic perseverance, and a grand departure from chick lit, I have just finished Noah Charney's The Art Thief. (Last book read was Shoe Addicts Anonymous. Pretty successful variation on the chick lit theme, I thought. Surprising.)

The Art Thief is a very clever book. It is so clever that I think I have to read it again another day to see the full picture, ha ha. There was this reviewer who said that he had to keep writing down what happened to which piece of painting to keep up with the story. For me, there were just one too many of these: forgeries, thefts and double-crossings. As another reviewer put it, the book is 'a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma'. In other words, too smart for my slow brain.

Nevertheless, it is an intriguing read (Rome-Paris-London plotline) and highly educational if one is interested in art history. I don't know much art history and it was wonderful for me that a lot of the 'educational' parts came from a funny lecturer in the book. It is also fast-paced (good!) and I have to say that it was quite a page-turner even when I was having to think twice or three times about some of the events. Interesting characters too.

The writer is a real art crime person (i.e. an expert in the area, not a criminal; teaches a course 'Trafficers, Thieves and Forgers') and so the art in the story is all real, I think.

The stolen pieces:

Caravaggio's Annunciation (source)

and Malevich's White On White (source)

Yeah, I wouldn't know how to appreciate this. How does one tell if it's fake or real? As the Scotland Yard inspector in the book puts it, it's just white!

Have a go at this lost-art puzzle.

Aww... Andy...

Despite the final result, today's accolades and picture must go to Andy Roddick. He played so well this year. His last three matches were like a trip to the past and better because he has improved so much. Many people thought last year's final was the greatest Wimbledon final, but I'd say this year's was even closer, no?

It just showed how far Roddick has pulled himself this year and was testimony to his the-match-is-not-over-till-the-last-point-is-played fighting spirit. After so many disastrous outings with Federer, to have pushed him so far yesterday was amazing. Of course I wish he (Roddick, of course) had won. He deserved to.

I just read his post-match interview where he was asked about losing the second set. His answer, “You know, at that point, like everything else, there's two options: you lay down or you keep going. The second option sounded better to me." Well said.

As for Federer, (grudging) congratulations again.

I don' t care who thinks he's the greatest of all time but I completely disagree, my reasons being:

1. A hero, role model, great champion, whatever, should have humility, not an ego, the size of a Swiss mountain.

2. Whether he was #1 or #2, very often in major tournaments he had the easier draw than his closest rivals.

3. He also often has his major stumbling blocks removed without even lifting a finger (Think Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, at this year's Slams). I thought he was practically handed this year's French Open on a silver platter. (He must have thought he would get Wimbledon on a golden platter. Bet he didn't expect that hard a battle with Roddick.)

4. He doesn't put in all those long training hours that everyone else does, does he?

5. He still has a glaringly poor losing record against Nadal and Murray, and is only 6-4 (I think) up against Djokovic.

How can he be the greatest?

To me, he is the 'player with the most Slams'.